3 ms·

youtubedown It's awesome because youtube is (intentionally) annoying, plus, it's nice to give back bugfix/feature patches when someone else (jwz) is kind enoug

by jcr 11y ago

youtubedown It's awesome because youtube is (intentionally) annoying, plus, it's nice to give back bugfix/feature patches when someone else (jwz) is kind enough to give their code to the public. EDIT: Thanks detaro. Link removed. I didn't know it was an issue, and obviously, couldn't see it.

detaro 11y ago
You know what's also annoying? linking to jwz from HN. He really seems to not like that... (EDIT: link has been removed in the meantime)
- smt88 11y ago
  You know what's even more annoying? Someone with a public website who breaks links in such an overtly antagonistic way. I've seen other people do this by simply having a text message that kindly asks people not to link to them. Anyway, it seems to be a static website, and it should be able handle HN traffic for a fairly small amount of effort and/or money.
  - brianwawok 11y ago
    I mean a static website can't put up cloudflare? It would rather redirect to a picture of balls?
    - numbsafari 11y ago
      The fact that people get so annoyed by it in such an entitled manner is what makes it most amusing. And it is most amusing.
      - brianwawok 11y ago
        I mean it isn't hard to be immature. You can go to 4chan and see people being immature all the time. Not that impressive honestly.
metasean 11y ago
For anyone else wondering about the links, I think one of these is the archive.org version of the link jcr removed: https://web.archive.org/web/20150930225625/https://www.jwz.org/blog/2013/06/youtubedown/ https://web.archive.org/web/20150930225625/https://www.jwz.o... [edited with more recent version] https://web.archive.org/web/20160310204843/https://www.jwz.org/hacks/youtubedown https://web.archive.org/web/20160310204843/https://www.jwz.o...
- jcr 11y ago
  The second link you posted '/20160127052944/' is bad. It links to an old version, 1.681, and the current version is 1.711 as of an hour or two ago. The version number matters. The url I posted and removed still works fine, so long as it's not originating from HN (i.e. 'referer' checking). If you do a quick web search on 'youtubedown' you'll find it.
  - metasean 11y ago
    Thanks for letting me know the latest archive version was already outdated! If jwz is trying to avoid the HN-effect, then sending people via another route won't completely mitigate the problem. I went ahead and updated the archive.org link. Providing that means HN users don't need to do yet another search and his site shouldn't get hammered nearly as much.

by jcr 11y ago

detaro 11y ago

You know what's also annoying? linking to jwz from HN. He really seems to not like that... (EDIT: link has been removed in the meantime)

smt88 11y ago
You know what's even more annoying? Someone with a public website who breaks links in such an overtly antagonistic way. I've seen other people do this by simply having a text message that kindly asks people not to link to them. Anyway, it seems to be a static website, and it should be able handle HN traffic for a fairly small amount of effort and/or money.
- brianwawok 11y ago
  I mean a static website can't put up cloudflare? It would rather redirect to a picture of balls?
  - numbsafari 11y ago
    The fact that people get so annoyed by it in such an entitled manner is what makes it most amusing. And it is most amusing.
    - brianwawok 11y ago
      I mean it isn't hard to be immature. You can go to 4chan and see people being immature all the time. Not that impressive honestly.

metasean 11y ago

For anyone else wondering about the links, I think one of these is the archive.org version of the link jcr removed: https://web.archive.org/web/20150930225625/https://www.jwz.org/blog/2013/06/youtubedown/ https://web.archive.org/web/20150930225625/https://www.jwz.o... [edited with more recent version] https://web.archive.org/web/20160310204843/https://www.jwz.org/hacks/youtubedown https://web.archive.org/web/20160310204843/https://www.jwz.o...

jcr 11y ago
The second link you posted '/20160127052944/' is bad. It links to an old version, 1.681, and the current version is 1.711 as of an hour or two ago. The version number matters. The url I posted and removed still works fine, so long as it's not originating from HN (i.e. 'referer' checking). If you do a quick web search on 'youtubedown' you'll find it.
- metasean 11y ago
  Thanks for letting me know the latest archive version was already outdated! If jwz is trying to avoid the HN-effect, then sending people via another route won't completely mitigate the problem. I went ahead and updated the archive.org link. Providing that means HN users don't need to do yet another search and his site shouldn't get hammered nearly as much.